Comment & Analysis: Dublin City Council officials told councillors last week that to implement active travel projects faster, they would have to lower the standard (more on that in another article soon), but the question is: How low can they go?The councils active travel team were given such a berating from councillors that I felt sorry for them while watching and re-watching it. Sadly, the scolding of the city councils active travel office was well deserved they have been incredibly slow to deliver safer streets, and their designs are, more often than not, inexplicably poor. If there are issues beyond their control, they are not being upfront about them, so they must bear the responsibility for inaction and designs that dont work, sometimes put people at risk, and are a poor use of limited funding.The active travel team recently published plans for the Chapelizod Road and Conyngham Road Active Travel Scheme, which are maddeningly inexplicably bad design. The main reason is to give extra space to new grass verges. Fresh from this, the active travel unit is back in the same area, suggesting that the bollard-protected cycle lanes on Islandbridge be made more permanent by adding kerbs.But as you might have guessed there are problems.First of all, to be fair, there are clear limitations: The BusConnect Lucan core route deals with the South Circular Road where it meets the Con Colbert Road (formerly the N4), and the northern entrance to Islandbridge is via Island Bridge, the narrow bridge near the Phoenix Park.There is no other road crossing of the River Liffey until nearly 3km west of here, and no soundbound crossing for nearly 2km east. So the road cannot easily be made one-way or otherwise restricted to create a consistently segregated cycling route. But thats all the more reason that the segregation leading up to the pinch point should be as seamless as practically possible. Starting with a school zone on a dual carriageway slip laneStarting at the Con Colbert Road junction, the council has marked off a school zone in the slip road of a dual carriageway without raising the existing crossing here (its not shown here clearly but its just after the yellow school zone marking and green dot with the white background). The very least that the council could do here is add a raised table to the crossing. Raised tables are not typical at signalised crossings, but they are not unheard of, and this location has been subject to ongoing complaints of red-light running by motorists while children are walking to school with their parents.Even allowing for extra width coming from the existing slip turn, the width of the southbound lane (the lower lane in the below image) is bonkers its wider than the lanes on the M50 in an area that is 50km/h and should be 30km/h, at least on approaches to the school. If Dublin City Council is serious about reducing speed limits around schools, the traffic and road safety section needs to have a word with the active travel office. It is also worth saying that while 2 metre cycle lanes are good by Irish standards, areas such as hills (ie this location) and near schools (again, here!) should have extra width. A mix of wider paths and wider buffers can help safety and attractiveness of cycle paths.On the other side of the road, this design should help slow traffic going toward the city centre or away from the city around the traffic system (straight ahead is only for continuing along the South Circular Road). But why is the cycle path narrowed to just 1.3 metres?An existing cycle lane out of the scope of the project being narrow is not a reason to narrow a planned section of corner segregation within the project below standards. The usable space of a cycle lane or even a bollard-protected one is much greater than that of a kerb-protected cycle path.Outside the entrance to the schools and the War Memorial Park, no crossing is provided for people walking or cycling, and the traffic lanes remain extra wide:Even if the active travel section (reasonably in this case) says that we cannot install cycle paths at the bus stops due to the limited space because of the trees etc, why would they leave a parking bay within the bus stop area? And lets say, just like the bridge ahead, the bus stops are too hard to do for now. That seems reasonable. But then you might expect no more issues between the bus stops and the bridge. If youre thinking that, you would be very much so mistaken.Despite the extra width in the traffic lanes, on one side, the cycle path is narrowed to below the standard 2m to just 1.5m even the 2m is not sufficient if theres a parking bay inside the cycle lane, which can be used by a large SUV or a van yet extra wide traffic lanes remain? Why? Any choices that might have inconvenienced motorists here were avoided no to removing the parking bay, even when there are parking options off the main road, and no to reducing the width of the traffic lane: And because of a mix of the parking bays and bus stops, etc, theres no protection on the cycle lane for some distance: This continues into the next drawing, where theres quite large patches without protection:And these parking bays seriously reduce the usability of the existing cycle lane:Choices were made here, and this is only one part of the bollard-protected cycle lanes on South Circular Road theres a longer section south of here will we see even more compromises there?